ARIZONA: Gov. Napolitano Sends English Learning Bill to Court-------------------------------------------------------------Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano finally allowed to become law the latest version of a Republican bill seeking to revamp programs for students learning English, according to Associated Press.

Gov. Napolitano considers the bill still inadequate after vetoing three previous versions, but she allowed it to become a law for U.S. District Judge Raner C. Collins to decide.

The state was ordered to improve its offering to students learning English after Judge Collin's predecessor ruled in 2000 that the state's programs for approximately 150,000 students were inadequately funded. The deficiency effectively violated a federal law that guarantees equal opportunities in education, the ruling said. The state was fined $500,000 on Jan. 25 for missing a deadline to draft ways to improve the program. The fine was increased to $1 million in January.

The suit is styled, "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of, et al., Case No. 4:92-cv-00596-RCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, under Judge Raner C. Collins. Representing the Plaintiff/s is Timothy Michael Hogan of Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, 202 E. McDowell Rd., Ste. 153, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Phone: 602-258-8850, Fax: 602-258-8757, E-mail: thogan@aclpi.org.

This case arose out of the Company's Suredeposit program. This program allows cash short prospective residents to purchase a bond in lieu of paying a security deposit. The bond serves as a fund to pay those resident obligations that would otherwise have been funded by the security deposit.

Plaintiffs allege that the non-refundable premium paid for the bond is a disguised form of security deposit, which is otherwise required to be refundable in accordance with Ohio's Landlord-Tenant Act. Plaintiffs further allege that certain nonrefundable pet deposits and other nonrefundable charges required by the Company are similarly security deposits that must be refundable in accordance with Ohio's Landlord-Tenant Act.

On January 15, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The Company subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. Both motions are pending before the Court.

AT&T INC: Wins Favorable Ruling in Pregnancy Discrimination Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The Ninth U.S. District Court of Appeals in Francisco has ruled that AT&T Inc. is not required to equalize retirement credits of pregnant and disabled employees before 1979, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

AT&T is facing a suit filed by four women in 2001. Representing the women is lawyer Suzanne Murphy. The suit was lodged as a proposed nationwide class action, but certification was put on hold pending a ruling on whether the company is required to pay equal benefits for pregnant and disabled workers. The women took pregnancy leaves between 1968 and 1976. At the time, the company allowed up to 30 days of service credit for pregnancy leave but granted credit for the entire length of any other disability leave.

After Congress passed Pregnancy Discrimination Act, AT&T granted pregnant employees full credit for time spent on leave but did not equalize credits for pre-1979 leaves. The women now alleged they lost between six months and a year of retirement credit. They are seeking increases in their current or future benefits.

The women based their arguments on a 1991 appeals court ruling that required equal retirement benefits for employees who took pregnancy leave before 1979. But the court said in a March 8 ruling the 1991 decision had been repealed by a 1994 Supreme Court order that limited the retroactive effect of new federal laws.

BAYVIEW CREMATORIUM: Operator Admits Illegal Operation in Mass.--------------------------------------------------------------- The operator of a Seabrook, Massachusetts' crematory that is facing class action has pleaded guilty to illegally performing dozens of cremations, according to WMURChannel.com.

James Fuller, who ran Bayview Crematorium, also admitted forging paperwork needed for the cremations, the report said. He operated the crematory from 2000 until it was closed in 2005. Under the plea agreement, Mr. Fuller will spend no more than 12 months in county jail. He is to be officially sentenced in May. An April trial, meanwhile, has been set against Bayview's owner, Derek Wallace.

In May 2005, 36 Massachusetts residents filed a class action against Bayview and 11 Bay State funeral homes, according to Eagle-Tribune. The suit was filed in Essex Superior Court seeking unspecified monetary damages for "negligent and intentional emotional distress" caused by the discovery of how the bodies of their relatives were handled at the crematory.

The suit named Linda Stokes, owner of the property where the Seabrook crematory is located, and funeral directors in Lawrence, Haverhill, Boston, Quincy, Dracut, Brighton and Newburyport.

The funeral homes named in the suit were Farrah Funeral Home and Hart-Wallace Funeral Home in Lawrence and the Scatamacchia Funeral Home in Haverhill, as well as William F. Spencer Funeral Services, American Cremation Society, Cremation Society Inc., Commonwealth Cremation & Shipping Service, Commonwealth Funeral Service, Dracut Funeral Home, Hamel, Wickens & Troupe Funeral Home and Simplicity Burial & Cremation.

The lead plaintiff is Paul Anzalone of Mansfield, Massachusetts, who is represented by:

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Employees Launch ERISA Fraud Suits in Mass.--------------------------------------------------------------Boston Scientific Corp. and certain of its officers face several Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On January 19, 2006, George Larson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District ofMassachusetts on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Company's 401(k) Plan and GESOP, together the "Plans", during the period March 31, 2003 through January 19, 2006, alleging that the Company and certain of its officers and employees violated certain provisions under ERISA, as amended (ERISA) and Department of Labor Regulations.

The complaint principally alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plans' participants, failed to disclose adverse information about the Company to the Plans' participants and imprudently made contributions to the Company's 401(k) plan and GESOP in the form of Company stock. It seeks unspecified damages, and equitable and injunctive relief.

On January 26, 2006, February 8, 2006, February 14, 2006 and February 23, 2006, Robert Hochstadt, Jeff Klunke, Kirk Harvey and Michael Lowe, respectively, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed purported class action complaints in the same court on behalf of the participants and beneficiaries in the Company's Plans. These complaints allege similar misconduct under ERISA and seek similar relief.

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suits in Mass.---------------------------------------------------------------Boston Scientific Corporation and certain of its officers and directors face a consolidated securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The suit is styled, "Shankar v. Boston Scientific Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-11934-JLT."

On September 23, 2005, Srinivasan Shankar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a purported securities class action suit on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities during the period March 31, 2003 through August 23, 2005, alleging that the Company and certain of its officers violated certain sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint principally alleges that the Company did not adequately disclose its ability to satisfy FDA regulations governing medical device product quality, which resulted in the artificial inflation of the Company's stock price and enabled certain of the Company's officers to profit from the sale of Company stock at such inflated prices. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, equitable, and injunctive relief.

On September 28, 2005, October 27, 2005, November 2, 2005 and November 3, 2005, Jack Yopp, Robert L. Garber, Betty C. Meyer and John Ryan, respectively on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a purported securities class action suit in the same Court on behalf of the same purported class, alleging similar misconduct and seeking similar relief.

The Company believes the suits will be consolidated. On November 21, 2005, six plaintiffs or plaintiff groups filed motions for consolidation, appointment of lead plaintiff and selection of lead counsel. The Court held a hearing on these motions on February 9, 2006. On February 15, 2006, the Court ordered that the five class actions be consolidated and appointed the Mississippi Public Employee Retirement System Group as lead plaintiff.

The suit is styled, "Shankar v. Boston Scientific Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-11934-JLT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Joseph L. Tauro. Representing the plaintiff/s are:

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Suit in Minn. Over Guidant Acquisition---------------------------------------------------------------A senior citizen initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against Boston Scientific Corporation, which seeks to stop the Company from acquiring Guidant Corp.

On January 26, 2006, Donald Wright filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against the Company and Guidant on behalf of himself and all other senior citizens and handicapped persons similarly situated seeking a permanent injunction to prohibit the Company from completing its acquisition of Guidant, alleging violations of the Minnesota Fraudulent Transfers Act and Consumer Fraud Act.

The complaint seeks restitution on behalf of those persons who suffered injury related to Guidant's cardiac pacemakers and/or defibrillators. It also seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. On February 14, 2006, Donald Wright filed a motion for preliminary and permanent injunction directing the Company to interplead $6.3 billion of the $27 billion purchase price to be paid to stockholders of Guidant. The motion alleges violations of the Minnesota Fraudulent Transfers Act and Consumer Fraud Act. On February 21, 2006, Mr. Wright filed an amended complaint dropping his claim for monetary damages.

The Company has not yet answered the complaint or responded to the February motion, but intends to vigorously deny the allegations.

BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION: Calif. Court Stays Frosini Litigation--------------------------------------------------------------Judge Christina A. Snyder granted defendants' request for a stay on the action styled, "Frosini v. Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC, No. 05-00578," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, according to McGlinchey Stafford of http://www.cafalawblog.com.

In somewhat of a role reversal, the plaintiffs in this case filed their complaint in California federal court against Bridgestone Corporation and other tire manufacturers, asserting federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) of 2005. However, the Company and the other defendants moved for a stay of the action until a California state court could adjudicate the pending action, which involved one of the named plaintiffs in the federal suit and Bridgestone.

In the state court action, the complaint asserted essentially the same claims against the Company as asserted in the federal action, in which a removal/remand fight that resulted in the case being remanded back to state court, had already bloodied the battlefield. Further, the plaintiff's counsel in the state court action, which is the same counsel as in the federal action, had already moved to certify the class in the state court, but class certification was denied. That denial of class certification though was on appeal to the California Court of Appeals at the time the federal court drafted its opinion.

To satisfy the high precedential bar for staying a federal action on the basis of a concurrent state proceeding, the Company attempted to demonstrate the "exceptional circumstances" required to stay the federal action, arguing that the actions addressed the same issues and the subject matter, claims, asked for identical relief, and beyond the jurisdictional requirements, the two suits were virtually identical. In addition, the defendants also argued that staying the federal action would avoid piecemeal litigation, and avoid the risk of conflicting results based solely on jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs though responded that, to the contrary, the action was "just the type of class action that Congress had in mind when drafting the Class Action Fairness Act . . . and that to stay the proceedings would serve to undermine this congressional intent." Apparently anticipating, if not conceding, a loss on appeal of the state class certification, the plaintiffs also argued that the federal action would not result in piecemeal litigation, since the state court action only concerned the underlying claims of the two named plaintiffs, not the entire class. Finally, the plaintiffs contended that the state action was an inadequate forum to protect the federal litigants' rights.

Though not explicitly addressing either side's arguments, Judge Snyder apparently decided that the defendants' arguments were sufficient, as she concluded that the Company had satisfied its heightened burden, and stayed the federal action for ninety days.

DAVOL/BARD: Recalls Hernia Repair Patch with Faulty Recoil Ring---------------------------------------------------------------Bard/Davol and FDA notified healthcare professionals of a class 1 recall of Bard Composix Kugel Mesh X-Large Patch Oval with ePTFE. The product is used to repair ventral (incisional) hernias caused by thinning or stretching of scar tissue that forms after surgery.

The "memory recoil ring" that opens the Composix Kugel Mesh Patch after it has been inserted into the intra-abdominal space can break. This can lead to bowel perforations and/or chronic intestinal fistulae (abnormal connections or passageways between the intestines and other organs).

The company said the snowboard binding's plastic base can break during use, posing a risk that snowboarders can fall and suffer a serious injury. Decathlon USA has received one report of a broken binding, though no injuries have been reported.

The model Rn'x7FX Quechua snowboard bindings are white or black. The word "Quechua" is located on the back of the binding. The model number is stamped on the box. Other Quechua snowboard bindings are unaffected by the recall but consumers may bring them to the store for proper identification.

The bindings were made in China and sold at Decathlon USA stores in Massachusetts from October 2005 through December 2005 for about $90.

Consumers are advised to stop using the snowboard bindings immediately and return them to a Decathlon store for a gift certificate or reimbursement. Consumers will also receive a free pair of self-heating snow gloves.

Filed on June 21, 2005, the complaint seeks unspecified damages for alleged unpaid overtime wages and bonuses, inadequate meal and rest breaks, and related claims. It is seeking class action status to represent all other current and former Downey Savings employees that held the position of loan underwriter, including, but not limited to, the job title of Senior Loan Underwriter within the State of California at any time during the four years prior to June 21, 2005 and/or who was employed by Downey Savings on or about September 30, 2002, when the Company terminated an annual bonus program.

Based on a review of the current facts and circumstances with retained outside counsel, the Company plans to oppose the claim and assert all appropriate defenses and management has provided for what is believed to be a reasonable estimate of exposure for this matter in the event of loss. While acknowledging the uncertainties of litigation, management believes that the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

GEICO: Car Insurance Suit Plaintiffs Silent on Decertification -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a class action filed against Washington-based insurer GEICO failed to respond to a motion to decertify the suit by a February deadline, the company's lawyers said, according to The Madison St. Clair Record.

Plaintiffs had been given until Feb. 13 to respond to a decertification motion by GEICO lawyers. Attorney Sheila Carmody of Phoenix filed the motion Oct. 28.

The suit was filed in 2001 by Myron Billups, whose Pontiac Grand Am crashed in 1998. He was joined later by Patricia Singleton, whose Cadillac was stolen and wrecked. Jeff Millar of the Lakin Law Firm in Wood River signed the complaint, which also listed three Chicago firms and two attorneys from Marion, according to the report.

The plaintiffs sought to represent drivers whose vehicles GEICO had paid off as total losses. In 2004, Madison County Circuit Judge Nicolas Byron certified their representation in 2004, as well as a multi-state class on breach of contract claims and an Illinois class on consumer fraud claims. In 2002, GEICO asked Judge Byron to postpone a decision on a class certification pending the Supreme Court's ruling on Avery vs. State Farm, a Williamson County class action. In August, the Court ruled that Avery and the other plaintiffs failed to prove deception or damages, throwing out a verdict of more than $1 billion.

The news that plaintiffs failed to send a response emerged in a Feb. 15 request for a ruling from Judge Byron by attorney Joseph Brown of Edwardsville. In court filings, GEICO also recorded excerpts from depositions of Mrs. Singleton and her son, Khari Sharp, supporting assertion that the plaintiff suffered no damage. Judge Byron has set a March 24 hearing.

GEICO -- http://www.geico.com/-- is a personal lines auto insurance company based in the U.S.. GEICO stands for Government Employees Insurance Company.

HAYES-SAMMONS: Plaintiffs Want Ban on JD Salinas' Political Ad --------------------------------------------------------------Some plaintiffs in a class action against Hayes-Sammons Chemical Co. are furious over a campaign advertisement that they claim insults families of chemical contamination victims.

Ginger Silva and at least a dozen other plaintiffs are demanding that the ad by JD Salinas, who is campaigning for a position as Hidalgo County Judge be taken off the air, according to KGBT. She is taking side with her attorney Ramon Garcia, who is alleged to have 'bilked' 75% of the fees from the class action. "That doesn't leave much for families exposed to banned pesticides like DDT," states the narrator in the advertisement.

A class action against about 25 chemical companies began in 1998 after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency filed a lawsuit against certain chemical companies to clean up the Hayes-Sammons plant in the early 1980s.

The resident who are involved in the case are seeking compensation for negligence, medical bills and devalued property, according to attorney Linda Laurent of Houston-based Reich and Binstock, one of several lawyers for the plaintiffs, a previous Class Action Reporter story says (Nov. 21, 2005).

The defendants in the case include Union Pacific Railroad Company, URS Corporation and Chevron Chemical Corporation. They are represented by Richard Newman of San Antonio-based Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.

HEARTLAND ADVISORS: Lawyer Seeks 30% Cut From $8.25M Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------Lawyers for shareholders of two defunct mutual funds run by Milwaukee's Heartland Advisors Inc. want a fee of 30% of the $8.25 million settlement of a class action against the Company's accounting firm, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports. They also want $1 million to cover expenses.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP agreed to the settlement in January, just as the case was to go to the jury following 12 days of testimony before U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller in Milwaukee. The money will be paid to settle a claim that the accounting firm failed to properly audit the old Heartland High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund and Short Duration High-Yield Municipal Fund.

The case started after a sharp fall in the value of the two funds in October 2000. At that time, assets in the High-Yield Municipal Bond fund were marked down by 69% and those in the Short Duration fund were marked down by 44%, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 25, 2005) reports.

C. Oliver Burt III, a lawyer from West Palm Beach, Florida, who tried the case and filed for the 30% fee plus expenses, told The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that how much any of the 10,000 to 11,000 investors in the funds will receive depends on when they bought and sold their shares.

The payments will be made after a pair of hearings before Judge Stadtmueller, where he will decide how much Mr. Burt should receive. Mr. Burt told The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he and his team incurred costs of $1,050,435 in the matter, which he asked to be awarded in addition to 30% of the settlement, which is $2,475,000.

Eric Jacobson, who is following the matter for Morningstar, Inc. in Chicago, told The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel a 30% fee "doesn't sound unusual to me."

Earlier, Heartland settled the case for $14 million, and Interactive Data Corp., a company that provided prices for some of the thinly traded bonds in the funds, paid $1 million. The former shareholders also received slightly more than $30 million when a receiver liquidated the assets in the funds.

HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Suit Settlement Hearing Set March 16, 2006 --------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan will hold fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter: "Schaffer v. Hewlett-Packard Company, (Case No. 2:04-cv-71391-JCO-SDP)." The case was brought on behalf of a class defined as, all end users who purchased one of the following models of HP Pavilion computer models 8655c, 8660c, 8750c, 8754c, 8755c, xl756 and xl759. The proposed Settlement resolves a lawsuit over whether HP sold Pavilion desktop computers with defective motherboards that caused the computers to "hang, freeze or lock" on a recurring basis.

The hearing will be held on March 16, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, E. Liberty St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104.

ILLINOIS: Judge to Hear Complaints V. Juvenile Center Next Month----------------------------------------------------------------U.S. District Judge John Nordberg set April 18 for a full hearing on conditions at the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center, the Chicago Tribune reports.

The hearing will take up allegations by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois that the county failed to abide by a 2003 memorandum of agreement that orders improvement at the facility under a class action ruling. Lawyers for ACLU alleged the center is dirty and unsafe to hundreds of youths being housed there. They have asked the judge to name an independent manager to oversee reform efforts and develop an improvement plan.

The attorney for the center, Patrick Driscoll, a supervisor in the Cook County state's attorney's office, had asked for 90 additional days to prepare, the report said.

KPMG LLP: Two High-Profile Names Emerge as Tax Shelter Buyers -------------------------------------------------------------The owner of the Golden State Warriors basketball team and a former U.S. ambassador to Ireland are included in the list of investors who bought tax shelters sold by accounting firm KPMG LLP, Inside Bay Area reports.

The list, unveiled recently by U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh in Newark, New Jersey, at the request of Bloomberg News, named Christopher Cohan, who owns the NBA's Warriors, and Richard Egan, the ex-ambassador and a co-founder of EMC Corp.

The Internal Revenue Service found the tax shelters, which helped taxpayers who bought them elude $2.5 billion in taxes, to be "abusive." A grand jury in New York has indicted 19 people, including KPMG's former chief financial officers, former KPMG tax professionals and a former lawyer at Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood LLP, which worked with KPMG, in connection with the shelter sales (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2005).

A $195 million settlement was reached in September intended to compensate former clients of KPMG and Sidley Austin who participated in the tax shelters known as Blips, Flip and Opis, as well as some former clients who participated in a shelter called Short Option Strategy (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2005). Sidley Austin is paying about 20% of the settlement.

The settlement was to go to court for final approval on Feb. 24, 2006, but U.S. District Court Dennis Cavanaugh in Newark, New Jersey rescheduled the hearing to give time for revisions because many have opted out, and are planning to file separate claims. The settlement reached in September covered four tax shelters offered by KPMG.

Awards which by law cannot cover back taxes and IRS penalties, will be a portion of the transaction fees that the taxpayers paid to arrange the shelters. The average payout would be $750,000, according to Melvyn I. Weiss, a class action lawyer whose firm negotiated the settlement with KPMG. He added that taxpayers without statute of limitation issues would get about 65 percent of their fees, while those with such issues would get 25 percent. The remaining $30 million would go to Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2005).

The four shelters were the subjects of KPMG's settlement agreement with federal prosecutors in New York in August. Under that agreement, KPMG admitted criminal wrongdoing in creating fraudulent tax shelters and agreed to pay $456 million in penalties. However, under that same agreement, KPMG won't face criminal prosecution as long as it complies with its terms (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2005).

The case before Judge Cavanaugh is among dozens of lawsuits brought by former KPMG clients in state and federal courts around the nation. According to KPMG's deferred-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors, KPMG sold the four shelters to about 600 wealthy people from 1996 to 2002 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2005).

KPMG LLP: Tex. Federal Judge Remands Werner Case to State Court---------------------------------------------------------------In remanding the case entitled, "Werner v. KPMG LLP, Case No. 4:05-cv-00821," back to Texas state court, Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas provides the parties a thorough background and straightforward analysis of some of the prominent issues presently surrounding Class Action Fairness Act litigation, according to McGlinchey Stafford of http://www.cafalawblog.com.

In conducting her excursion through CAFA, Judge Rosenthal discusses several timely issues, including the burden of proof in remand battles, and the "date of commencement" issue, and specifically the link between the relation-back doctrine and whether amended pleadings trigger the application of CAFA to an existing action. The framework providing the judge with her opportunity to discuss these wide-ranging issues centers around an interesting Texas statute that allows a defendant to name "responsible parties" without actually making the "responsible" entity a party to the lawsuit.

The original putative class action was filed pre-CAFA in state court by investors of two Texas limited partnerships who claimed that KPMG facilitated the general partners' self dealing and mismanagement of the limited partnerships. On January 6, 2005, pre-CAFA, KPMG filed a third-party complaint designating the general partners and other individuals as "responsible third parties" under Section 33.004 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, the statute which allows defendants to designate "responsible parties" who may have caused or contributed to causing the harm the defendant is accused of in order to allocate responsibility to those parties. The statute "does not require a designated responsible third party to file and answer or responsive pleading, and a failure to do so cannot result in a default judgment."

Despite this, two of the parties KPMG designated: St. James Entities and Charles E. Underbrink, answered the Company's third-party petition prior to CAFA becoming law. After CAFA's effective date, the plaintiffs amended their petition to include the St. James Entities and Underbrink, who subsequently removed the action, asserting minimal diversity jurisdiction under CAFA. The plaintiffs then moved to remand, setting the stage for Judge Rosenthal's CAFA exhibition.

Judge Rosenthal first recognized the debate CAFA has induced regarding the burden of proof in the remand context. After reviewing the arguments made to date on both sides of the debate, the court discusses the legislative history relied on by some courts to find a shift in the traditional burden of proving federal jurisdiction from the party invoking federal jurisdiction to the party advocating remand.

Instead, relying on the Seventh Circuits' language in "Brill v. Countrywide," she concludes that the statute's textual silence, when contrasted with its explicit modification of other aspects of removal practice, indicated Congress's intent not to disturb the status quo, thus declining to transfer the burden, holding that "the party opposing remand continues to bear the burden of proving federal jurisdiction."

In addressing the commencement issue, Judge Rosenthal takes an in-depth look at the host of federal decisions finding that state law determines when a case "commences." After reviewing cases applying the relation-back doctrine to determine when an amended pleading kicks off a new action, Judge Rosenthal described the common invocation of this doctrine: "The relation-back concept is applied as an analytic tool, a way of determining whether amended pleadings so change the claims or parties as to be a new civil action, rather than a `workaday change' that continues a pending action."

However, Judge Rosenthal's analysis of the case focused not on whether the plaintiffs' decision to sue the St. James Entities and Underbrink was a post-CAFA amendment of their complaints and thus the commencement of a new action, but rather, that the real determination was whether the two new defendants had turned themselves into "parties" to the suit before the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include them. Judge Rosenthal found in the affirmative that the former non-party "responsible parties" had in effect "intervened and became parties to the action when they filed breach of contract claims against the plaintiffs" in their answers to KPMG's third party complaint. The court concluded that the St. James Entities and Underbrink morphed into "parties" on January 31, 2005, upon the filing of their responsive pleadings to KPMG's third-party petition, officially intervening in the action under Texas law.

Thus, Judge Rosenthal concluded that the plaintiffs' March 2005 amended petition did not "commence" a new action for removal purposes, since the removing defendants were already parties to the suit, and since the amendments, which, according to relation-back principles, "arose out of the same transactions or occurrences as the pre-CAFA claims against KPMG." The court concluded, "CAFA does not apply because this action `commenced' as to the removing defendants before CAFA's enactment and the plaintiffs' amended pleading filed after CAFA did not `commence' a new action," and accordingly, shipped the case back to Texas state court.

NATIONAL MONEY: Attempt to Block Payday Loans Suit Falls Through----------------------------------------------------------------The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed a bid by cheque-cashing company National Money Mart to have a proposed class action against it dismissed, according to the Toronto Star.

The suit was filed by Windsor pensioner Margaret Smith, who alleged the fees and interest combined on the company's short-term payday loans exceeds the legal rate of interest set out in the Criminal Code. The Code provides a maximum charge of 60% per annum. Ms. Smith is represented by:

The representative claimant is seeking from Money Mart and its U.S. parent company $555 million, on behalf of Canadian borrowers, according to the report.

A hearing has been set in May to determine whether the fees and interest charged on the company's payday loans, when combined and calculated as interest, contravene section 347 of the Criminal Code.

National Money Mart -- http://www.moneymart.ca/-- is a chain of 350 cheque-cashing firm, owned by U.S. parent company Dollar Financial Corp.

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set March 20, 2006----------------------------------------------------------------The Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter, "Dory Sabielny v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 99-2634-CA."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased a new or renewal Florida automobile, homeowners, property and casualty, surety or marine insurance policy issued by the Defendant effective on or after May 1, 1997 and who paid all premiums owed, including at least one installment fee greater than $1.00 on or after May 1, 1997 and or before May 13, 2002 pursuant to an installment payment plan offered by Defendant that charged fees allegedly constituting a "premium finance charge," "installment fee," "service charge," or "service fee" greater than $1.00 per installment or an "interest charge" exceeding 18 percent simple interest per year on the unpaid premium balance.

The hearing will be held on March 20, 2006 at 1:30 a.m., before the Honorable R. Thomas Corbin of the Circuit Court for Lee County, Florida, Lee County Courthouse, 1700 Monroe St., Fort Myers, FL 33901.

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on March 15, 2006. Any objections to the settlement must be filed by March 1, 2006.

NETGEAR INC: Consumer Suit Settlement Hearing Set March 21, 2006----------------------------------------------------------------The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter, "Zilberman v. Netgear, Inc., Case No. 1-04-CV-021230." The case was brought on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased between January 1, 1999 through November 22, 2005 any wireless products sold by Netgear, Inc.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Jack Komar on March 21, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. at Santa Clara Superior Court, 161 N. First St., Dept. 17C, San Jose, California 95113.

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on July 5, 2006. Any objections to the settlement must be filed by March 6, 2006.

The suit was filed after a newspaper article appeared in La Presse reporting that certain unnamed pharmaceutical manufacturers may have given "illegal" rebates to pharmacists in Quebec and other provinces in the form of benefits. Further reports said an investigation was launched into this matter by the Regie de l'assurance maladie du Quebec.

Option Consommateurs sought to represent all Quebec residents against nine manufacturers of medications, alleging the "illegal" rebates increased the cost of private or public drug insurance plans in Quebec. In January, however, the Superior Court of Quebec ruled that the "the authorization of class action proceedings is not simply a rubber-stamp process which invites the institution of proceedings grounded merely on general and vague allegations and pure speculation," according to the report.

Steubenville attorney Gary Stern initially filed suit against the city and Traffipax Inc., the company who supplied the cameras, on behalf of his wife, who received one of the $85 tickets issued by a traffic camera. The attorney argued that the cameras are illegal and unconstitutional.

Mr. Stern claims that the cameras are unconstitutional for a number of reasons among those are that motorists don't have the right to appeal. The traffic cameras read the speed of cars driving by, and if you are in excess of the speed limit, you are mailed an $85 ticket, according to court documents (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 25, 2005).

Earlier, Jefferson County Common Pleas Judge David E. Henderson ordered the removal of speed cameras in Steubenville after a Mr. Stern challenged the installation of the device in a class action. Mr. Stern, whose wife received two speed camera citations in the mail, each bearing a $85 fine, said in the lawsuit the city does not follow the terms of its own ordinance which requires a 14-day notice before installing the cameras. Mr. Stern wants the $229,000 in fines already collected by the city to be refunded, according to I-Newswire, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 15, 2006).

With the completion of final arguments, Judge David E. Henderson will now decide if the city can continue using the traffic cameras to issue citations, something that will impact hundreds of drivers who received the automated traffic tickets.

In the courtroom, Mr. Stern questioned a representative from Traffipax about the accuracy of the cameras, specifically how often they are calibrated. According to him, "They're basically disregarding a certain constitutional right, and also frankly doesn't even satisfy anybody knowing whether this equipment is working, whether it's accurate, whether it's reliable," he said.

Traffipax did not give a specific answer of when or how those cameras were calibrated. The company and the city declined comment.

On February 15, Jefferson County Judge David E. Henderson ruled that a class action suit could proceed against the city of Steubenville and Traffipax. The judge said the case is not about whether the cameras are good or bad, or whether or not they actually slow drivers down.

OKLAHOMA: House Committee Approves HB3120 Lawsuit Reform Bill -------------------------------------------------------------The Oklahoma House of Representatives Judiciary Committee approved House Bill 3120, the Common Sense in the Courtroom Act, which was proposed by the House Republican leadership, The Insurance Journal reports.

The bill will now go to the full House for a vote. Speaker Todd Hiett told The Insurance Journal that he expects the bill to win easy passage when it comes before the full House, but passing the Senate is key. According to him, "Lawsuit reform is a major step we must take to attract and keeping good jobs here." He adds, "While surrounding states have passed lawsuit reform, we've fallen behind. If we don't act, Oklahoma's hardworking families will continue to pay the costs in more expensive healthcare, lower wages and fewer job opportunities."

"For more than three years, meaningful lawsuit reform has been blocked by powerful trial lawyers," echoes Rep. Fred Morgan (R-Oklahoma City), chair of the House Judiciary Committee. He added, "We can only pass true lawsuit reform this year if Senate Democrat leaders will work in a bipartisan fashion to move Oklahoma forward."

According to Rep. Hiett, the Common Sense in the Courtroom Act tackles five major areas of reform:

P&O PACIFIC: Faces Threat of Suit Over Singapore Cruise Delays--------------------------------------------------------------Some P&O Pacific Sky passengers who were stranded on a trip to Singapore are considering filing class action against the shipping line, according to ABC News Online.

The cruise ship was stranded in Malacca Straights after leaving port on Saturday due to engine problems. Because of some repairs, it bypassed two ports to recover lost traveling time. P&O says the 1,500 passengers will be given $350 in compensation, according to the report.

POULTRY INDUSTRY: Blue Green Suit Trial to Continue in September----------------------------------------------------------------Washington County Circuit Judge Kim Smith decided to continue a case against poultry farms until September after disputes over expert witnesses and sharing evidence delayed the suit, The Morning News reports.

A suit filed by Michael Blu Green was originally scheduled for trial April 3. The case stems from allegations of about 50 families in Prairie Grove, Arkansas that chicken litter spread on nearby fields caused health problems in the community.

Judge Smith told parties in the case on March 4 to work out a final scheduling order including specific cutoff dates for exchanging evidence. He ordered plaintiffs' attorney in January to pay $1,000 for failing to comply with his November order to answer questions in a timely manner.

According to the report, the various lawsuits over the environmental problem include about 100 plaintiffs. Defendants include Alpharma, Alpharma Animal Health, Cal-Maine Farms, Cargill, George's, Peterson, Simmons and Tyson Foods. Judge Smith ruled last year that the claims are too different to be tried as a single class action.

PRAXAIR INC: Faces Consolidated Manganese Injury Suit in Ohio-------------------------------------------------------------Praxair, Inc. faces a consolidated class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging that exposure to manganese contained in welding fumes in company facilities caused neurological injury.

As of June 30, 2005, the Company was a co-defendant with many other companies in 1,538 lawsuits alleging personal injury caused by manganese contained in welding fumes. The cases were pending in state and federal courts in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. There were a total of 11,314 individual claimants in these cases.

Six of the cases are proposed statewide class actions seeking medical monitoring on behalf of welders. None of the class actions have been certified. All of the cases filed in or removed to federal courts have been (or are in the process of being) transferred by the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and, in most instances, punitive damages.

In the past, the Company has either been dismissed from the cases with no payment or has settled a few cases for nominal amounts. In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company said that it has never manufactured welding consumables. Its predecessor company manufactured such products prior to 1985.

RECORD COMPANIES: Faces Allegations of 'Price Fixing' in Calif.--------------------------------------------------------------- San Diego lawyer William Lerach has filed a complaint in federal court accusing major music labels of fixing prices for Internet music downloads and CDs, according to Red Herring.

The suit, filed in a federal court in San Francisco, California names as defendants Sony BMG, Universal Music, Time Warner, Bertelsmann, and EMI. It alleged that the companies "conspired to fix and maintain" music prices, and sought to shut down online music pioneer Napster at the same they were introducing their own joint ventures to sell online music, the report said.

The suit follows a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into the pricing of online music and collusion among the major labels on how songs are sold over the Internet.

For more information, contact William Lerach, Phone: (619) 231-1058 or (800) 449-4900; E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com; On the Net: http://www.lerachlaw.com/.

RIGHTSTAR HAWAII: Accounting Probe Spots $30M Gap in Trust Fund---------------------------------------------------------------Up to $30 million owed to about 50,000 purchasers of "pre-need" funeral plans and cemetery plots in Hawaii is missing from trust accounts of RightStar group of companies, according to Honolulu Advertiser.

The missing amount was revealed at a recent court hearing in relation to an attempt by the state to amend terms of a foreclosure sale of RightStar's assets. In 2004, Vestin Mortgage files foreclosure lawsuit against RightStar, as the state appoints Guido Giacometti as receiver to run day-to-day operations of RightStar companies.

John Candon, an appointed official examining the RightStar group's books, said in a preliminary review of the firm's finances that Pre-Need Trusts have been routinely misused, mismanaged and robbed by operators of RightStar companies. Mr. Candon was selected in May 2005 by state Circuit Judge Sabrina McKenna to oversee a financial accounting of the trusts.

In June 2005, a class action was launched against RightStar Hawaii Management Inc., its officers and former trustees, alleging that Hawaii's largest funeral services business violated state law and their trust duties by withdrawing over $9 million from customer trust fund accounts since 2002, TheHawaiiChannel.com reports (July 1, 2005). The pre-need trust accounts has 40,000 to 50,000 members.

State Rep. Scott Saiki, D-22nd (McCully, Pawa'a), is one of the attorneys who filed the class action. Two former RightStar customers are named as plaintiffs in the suit, but Rep. Saiki stated that an estimated 1,057 RightStar customers could have been adversely affected by the companies' business practices.

RightStar -- http://www.rightstarhawaii.com/-- owns and operates Valley of the Temples on Oahu, Kona and Homelani Memorial on the Big Island and Maui Memorial. Among its trustees is former Gov. John Waihee.

SONY BMG: EFF Campaigns to Facilitate Settlement in RootKit Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) recently set up a few web sites to help the victims of Sony BMG's infamous rootkit CDs clean their computers and get their fair share of a recent class action settlement, The ARS Technica reports.

The Foundation is asking webmasters and bloggers to help spread the word through a variety of banners. It's the first time the EFF has had reasons to run a campaign like this.

First, the EFF was a party to the lawsuit itself, and their action directly brought a public settlement or opportunity for restitution. Making the ordinary consumer aware that his favorite CD may have infected his PC, and that he is entitled to some cash and/or free music is not only a nice humanitarian move on the EFF's part, but also good PR. There are security implications to using the affected products, which means that the Internet as a whole gets a little healthier for every patched rootkit.

According to EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry, "In this case, there isn't a complete record of everyone who bought (or was given) an XCP or MediaMax CD, and all of those folks may have a security risk on their computers." Ms. McSherry also said in the e-mail to the Orbiting HQ, "So it's important to get the word out in as many ways as possible, to as many people as possible. Besides, EFF has a unique platform as a public interest advocate. We're happy to use that platform to let music fans know that they can finally get what they thought they were buying in the first place--music that will play on their computers without restriction or security risk."

EFF and its co-counsel, Green and Welling; Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Ruchman and Robbins, and the Law Offices of Lawrence E. Feldman and Associates, along with a coalition of other plaintiffs' class action counsel, reached the settlement after negotiations with the Company.

One of the suits affected by the settlement was filed back in November against Sony BMG and First4Internet, the British Company that produced the anti-piracy software. The suit, which could potentially include consumers in all 50 states, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit's two named plaintiffs are, James Michaelson from Illinois and an Ori Edelstein from New Jersey, who are both represented by New York attorney Scott Kamber. The suit claims, "To date, over 3 million copies of XCP encoded disks have been sold. It is probable that millions of consumers have played these discs on their PC's and thus compromised their systems without knowing it," (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 16, 2005).

Although billed by the Company as common digital rights management (DRM) software that is just for copy protection, it is really much more. The "XCP" software utilizes "rootkit" technology that hides the software from users. The software creates a security risk for personal computers, potentially allowing hackers to hide damaging programs in computers that contain the Company's disguised software.

The software also secretly communicates with Sony's servers and can be used to send information back to the users' media player programs. The Sunncomm MediaMax software used on some CDs actually installs itself before the user is asked to agree to the terms of installation. For both XCP and MediaMax software, the terms of the EULA are asserted to be improper and without the proper disclosures for what is actually occurring when a user clicks on the button to "Agree" to its terms, (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 16, 2005).

What a consumer receives under the settlement depends on what version of the botched DRM they were affected by. If it was MediaMax 3.0 (check your CD insert), they're good for free downloads of the music that he/she bought to begin with. MediaMax 5.0 gives the consumer that, plus one free album download from iTunes, Wal-Mart, FYE, or CONNECT Music. XCP protection means that the consumer will get the free download, a replacement, DRM-free disc, and his/her choice of either $7.50 plus one free album download from one of the services mentioned above, or no cash and three albums.

In return, the consumer must submit a proof of purchase, but if he/she lost the original receipt, they still do have other options. Ms. McSherry explains, "There are a variety of proofs you can submit. For MediaMax, for example, if you don't have a copy of the receipt, you can submit the CD itself, the original UPC symbol cut out of the album artwork, a copy of a credit card or bank statement reflecting your purchase, or a copy of a cancelled check reflecting your purchase."

The company said these seats may have a white chalky powder or residue on their surface. It is the UV Absorber that has separated from the seat due to a molding defect that affected some seats produced in one or more molding runs. This could cause skin irritation to children who come into contact with the residue. No injuries have been reported.

The products are gray or red infant seats that are permanently attached to shopping carts in retail stores. "SAFE-SEAT +" is molded into the side of these seats. A metal tube around the frame of the seat attaches it to the shopping cart.

The products are made in the U.S., and sold by SSC Inc. nationwide to grocery stores and other retail stores that provide shopping carts for consumer use. Units sold from June 2005 through December 2005.

Customers who notice chalky white residue in the seats are advised to remove them from consumer use immediately and call SSC Inc. to arrange for free replacement seats.

In January and February 2003, various parties filed purported class actions against TKT, which was acquired by Shire, PLC, on July 27, 2005, and Richard Selden, TKT's former Chief Executive Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaints generally allege securities fraud during the period from January 2001 through January 2003. Each of the complaints asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges that TKT and its officers made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information concerning the status and progress for obtaining U.S. marketing approval of TKT's REPLAGAL product to treat Fabry disease during that period.

In March 2003, various plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate, to appoint lead plaintiff, and to approve plaintiffs' selections of lead plaintiffs' counsel. In April 2003, various plaintiffs filed a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order of Lead Plaintiff Applicants to Consolidate Actions, to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs and to Approve Lead Plaintiffs' Selection of Lead Counsel, Executive Committee and Liaison Counsel.

Company, underwriters of TKT's common stock in prior public offerings.

The Amended Complaint alleges securities fraud during the period from January 4, 2001 through January 10, 2003. The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information concerning the status and progress for obtaining U.S. marketing approval of REPLAGAL during that period.

The Amended Complaint asserts claims against Dr. Selden and TKT under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and against Dr. Selden under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint also asserts claims based on TKT's public offerings of June 29, 2001, December 18, 2001 and December 26, 2001 against:

(1) each of the defendants under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and against Dr. Selden under Section 15 of the Securities Act; and

The plaintiffs seek equitable and monetary relief, an unspecified amount of damages, with interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

In September 2003, TKT filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. A hearing of the motion occurred in December 2003. In May 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum of Decision and Order denying in part and granting in part TKT's motion to dismiss the purported class action.

In the Memorandum, the Court found several allegations against TKT arose out of forward-looking statements protected by the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). The Court dismissed those statements as falling within the PSLRA's safe harbor provisions. The Court also dismissed claims based on the public offerings of June 29, 2001 and December 18, 2001 because no plaintiff had standing to bring such claims. The Court allowed all other allegations to remain.

In June 2004, TKT submitted an unopposed motion seeking clarification from the Court that the Memorandum dismissed claims based on the first two offerings as to all defendants. The Court granted the motion. In July 2004, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims based on the third offering because no plaintiff had standing to bring such claims.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion seeking permission to notify certain TKT investors of the dismissal of the claims based on the offerings, and to inform those investors of their opportunity to intervene in the lawsuit. TKT filed an opposition to this motion in July 2004. A hearing on this motion was held in September 2004. The Court denied this motion. TKT filed an answer to the Amended Complaint in July 2004. The plaintiffs then filed a motion for class certification in July 2004.

TKT filed an opposition to this motion in March 2005, and the plaintiffs filed a reply in April 2005. A hearing on class certification was held in April 2005. Following that hearing, TKT filed a supplemental brief in opposition to the motion for class certification and the plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief in support of the motion. In November 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

UNITED STATES: D.C. Court Affirms Dismissal of Gender Bias Case---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reaffirmed the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia of the gender discrimination class action styled, "Love v. Johanns, Case No. 00cv02502," according to Robert Loblaw of http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/.

Back in 1999, the U.S. Department of Agriculture settled a massive class action suit filed by African-American farmers, known as the Pigford case. The USDA gives local farmer committees the authority to approve federal loans and assistance, and the plaintiffs in Pigford alleged that the local committees disproportionately delayed or denied the applications of minorities. In the current class action, female farmers are piggybacking on Pigford's success by alleging that the local committees are also discriminating based on gender.

The plaintiffs are Rosemary Love and nine other female farmers, who are claiming on behalf of themselves and "not less than 3,000" similarly-situated women, that the USDA discriminatorily administered its lending programs, and that the Department failed to process and properly investigate women's discrimination complaints over the last quarter-century.

The District Court denied class certification, and just recently the D.C. Circuit affirmed that decision. The Court explains that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the plaintiffs' evidence of commonality was not sufficient, even though the Court might have also upheld class certification on the same evidence. On the plaintiffs' claim that the USDA failed to investigate their discrimination complaints, the Court finds that the record is not sufficiently developed to affirm the district court's dismissal. Thus, it remands for further development the plaintiffs' Administrative Procedure Act claim.

The suit is now styled, "LOVE et al. v. VENEMAN, Case No. 1:00-cv-02502-JR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge James Robertson. Representing the plaintiff/s are:

UNITED STATES: NERA Research Recommends Disclosing Risks Early-------------------------------------------------------------- A new study suggests that revealing the possibility of bad news before it becomes a certainty can mitigate damages in the event of a securities class-action lawsuit, according to David M. Katz of CFO.com.

In addition, according to the study, which was done by a senior vice president at New York-based NERA Economic Consulting, doing this can also guide senior finance executives in assessing the legal risks that their companies would face should they be forced to restate financial results.

In his working paper, "Risk Disclosures and Damages Measurement in Securities Fraud Cases," David Tabak pointed out that those risks could arise when a company discloses an omission or misrepresentation of material information later than it might have. He suggests that if plaintiffs in a securities class-action lawsuit prove that tardy disclosure caused them to lose money, the damages they collect could well be higher.

Indeed, those legal risks appear to be on the rise, triggered by the current surge in restatements. According to shareholder advisory firm Glass, Lewis & Co., 971 public companies restated their earnings in the first 10 months of 2005 compared with 619 in all of 2004, USA Today reported late last year.

Given the increasing potential for shareholder lawsuits, Mr. Tabak believes that top managers should give greater weight to the option of revealing the possibility of bad news before it becomes a certainty. The realization of such perils as an adverse interest-rate movement, a product failure, or an impending government probe "could easily lead to a large decline in a company's stock price" - a greater decline, he asserts, than what would have occurred earlier if the company had merely disclosed the probability that an event would take place.

That reasoning, according to Mr. Tabak figures prominently in the damages assessment of a securities-fraud case. Courts begin that assessment by gauging "the artificial inflation" of the company share price over its "true value." He noted that the true value is what "the price would be if defendants corrected any previous misrepresentations or unlawful omissions of information."

In other words, a company that makes such a disclosure would enable the market to factor the risk into the company's share price. At the time of the disclosure, since there would be little or no artificial share-price inflation, the company would have little or no liability.

On the other hand, a company that fails to make such a disclosure, or that spreads disinformation, would not allow the market to take the risk into account, and investors might pay too much for their shares. Later, once the misrepresentation is revealed and the share price drops, those investors might very well sue to recover their financial loss.

Risks do not always turn into reality, of course. A company might make a disclosure and experience some decline in its share price, later, when the possible bad news hasn't come to pass, managers might rue that the share price took a hit. However, such regret might be a small price to pay for knowing that a shareholder suit isn't in the works.

USF CORPORATION: Penn. Judge Okays $7M Settlement with Workers--------------------------------------------------------------The regional director of the National Labor Relations Board found USF Corp. in complete compliance with law when it closed its Red Star division after a brief strike in Philadelphia in 2004.

Dorothy L. Moore-Duncan wrote in her decision recently that USF's closure was justified by legitimate concerns over future loses resulting from a May 21 shutdown of operations, The Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

Robert F. O'Brien of Cherry Hill alleged in an unfair-labor complaint in 2004 that the closure was in retaliation for the strike. Workers staged a strike against the company after it refused to allow office members to join the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

In January, a federal judge in Philadelphia approved a $7 million settlement to 1,700 union employees in a related class action over closure warnings. USF Corp., of Chicago, is now owned by YRC Worldwide Inc., of Overland Park, Kansas.

On November 19, 2004, the Teamsters National Freight Industry Negotiating Committee (TNFINC) filed a complaint against the Company, USF Red Star Inc. and USF Holland Inc. in the UnitedStates District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In connection with the shut down of USF Red Star, the Teamsters claimed certain violations of the National Labor Relations Act (the NLRA), alleging (among other things) that the shut down was in breach of USF Red Star's labor contract. The Teamsters asked for unspecified damages. On January 13, 2005, service of process was effectuated on all three USF defendants. TNFINC alleges certain violations of the National Labor Relations Act and asks for damages.

WARN Class Actions

Additionally, the Teamsters filed a class action suit on behalf of the employees of USF Red Star alleging violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (Act), seeking 60 days back compensation for USF Red Star employees due to allegedly shutting down USF Red Star without adequate notice under the WARN Act. The Teamsters also requested the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to issue a complaint against USF, USF Red Star and USF Holland for allegedly unfair labor practices for these same allegations.

Including the Teamsters WARN action mentioned above, either or both of USF or USF Red Star are currently named in five class actions alleging violations of the federal WARN Act. These suits have been consolidated into one action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs in these suits are seeking 60 days back compensation for USF Red Star employees due to allegedly shutting down Red Star without adequate notice under the WARN Act.

USF Red Star sued the Teamsters in connection with their strike on USF Red Star in the Northern District of New York, alleging that the strike was in breach of Teamsters' labor contract and that the strike was illegal secondary conduct under the NLRA, intending to pressure USF Dugan to allow organizing efforts at USF Dugan to succeed. USF Red Star sought unspecified damages from the Teamsters in connection with this lawsuit.

The Teamsters, the Company, USF Holland, USF Red Star and the WARN class action plaintiffs have tentatively settled all of these disputes arising out of the USF Red Star shutdown. Pursuant to the tentative settlement, USF Red Star would pay the WARN Act plaintiffs $7 million; the WARN Act plaintiffs would release USF Red Star, USF Holland and USF from any further liability; the unfair labor practice charges before the NLRB would be withdrawn; and certain related labor grievances would be settled. The tentative settlement is subject to final approval of the court.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Berry Case Remanded to Miss. State Court---------------------------------------------------------------A federal judge from the Western District of Missouri remanded the class action, styled, "Berry v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., No. 05-1158," back to state court, according to McGlinchey Stafford of http://www.cafalawblog.com.

On January 20, 2005, almost a month prior to the effective date of the Class Action Fairness Act, Darren Berry filed this action in Missouri state court, seeking certification of two classes: a nationwide class, and a second class consisting only of citizens of Missouri.

In both classes, Mr. Berry alleged that the Company engaged in active concealment in connection with the marketing and sale of automobiles with "defective window regulators." He also asserted a second claim under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act on behalf of the state class only. On October 20, 2005, the plaintiff amended his petition adding to the fray an additional named plaintiff as a class representative and a number of California citizens as additional plaintiffs in the nationwide class definition. On November 18, 2005, the Company removed the action to federal court, alleging that the amended petition and addition of plaintiffs commenced a new action for the purposes of CAFA.

District Judge Ortrie D. Smith was quick off the line as to when an amendment relates back to the original complaint, "Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arises from the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment related back to the date of the original pleading." In addition, Judge Smith also relied heavily on the Eighth Circuit's recent holding in "Plubell v. Merck & Co.," in which the court held that substituting a new class representative does not necessarily commence a new action under CAFA. Moreover, if a defendant "knew or should have known that it would be required to defend against claims asserted by the newly-added plaintiff," then the amended petition will relate back to the original filing.

In an effort to distinguish "Plubell," the Company argued that it was impossible to know that the class membership would be amended to include thousands of plaintiffs from California, a seemingly logical argument. However, that argument did not hold when Judge Smith countered that the number of added plaintiffs was of no importance to a relation-back determination, deciding instead that the focus of the relation-back inquiry should be whether the amended petition asserted any new claims of which the defendant did not have notice of at the time of the original filing.

Judge Smith also noted that the Company itself had argued that the same nationwide warranty claims were made in a 2004 California putative class action, so Volkswagen had prior notice that it might have to defend those claims. Finding further that the new petition asserted no new claims, but rather, asserted the exact claims as the original complaint, the court held that the amended petition related back to the pre-CAFA filing date, thus precluding the application of CAFA.

In conclusion, Judge Smith wrecked the Company's alternative argument that supplemental jurisdiction provided federal jurisdiction for the claims under "Exxon v. Allapattah," and remanded the case back to Missouri state court.

WESTLAND DEVELOPMENT: Investors Object to Sale of Firm, Property---------------------------------------------------------------- Westland Development Corp. in Albuquerque, New Mexico is facing a lawsuit over its plan to sell the company and its West Side property, according to Albuquerque Journal.

The suit was filed in state District Court by Maria Elena Rael on March 2. Representing Ms. Rael is:

Mr. Koluncich, who represents about a dozen Westland stockholders, is also acting for Rachel Stubbs, who filed a suit against the company on Feb. 21. He said the suits are part of a larger class action against the firm. It claims that nine Westland executives and board members agreed to sell the company and its 55,000 acres property for monetary proceeds. The company's board is selling the company to Sedora Holdings, a Nevada-based development company for $255 a share plus $1 million each year for the next 100 years to buy Westland. This was after similar talks with ANM Holdings fell through.

The suit is seeking:

(1) to invalidate the ANM and Sedora agreements;

(2) damages;

(3) the creation of a cultural heritage committee to pass on the area's history and legacy.

Shareholders controlling more than 67% of Westland's 829,927 shares are still to approve the deal.

Westland is also facing a class action threat from Concerned Heirs of Atrisco, who become heirs of the property under a 1967 state law.

WESTPOINT CORPORATION: IMF Contributes $15M to Mulled Lawsuit------------------------------------------------------------- A planned class action by investors against the failed Westpoint Corp. was given a $15 million funding boost, The Sunday Times reports.

Perth, Australia-based litigation funding group IMF put up $15 million to fund legal action by law firm Slater and Gordon against the failed property development group. The Westpoint collapse is the largest of its type in recent years, with small investors being the biggest group affected, Slater and Gordon lawyer Rob Lees told The Sunday Times.

According to Mr. Lees, with 4000 people losing a total of more than $300 million, ordinary investors were lining up in droves to take part in the lawsuit. He added that the sums people lost ranged from $50,000 to more than a million dollars.

Mr. Lees also told The Sunday Times that he believes more than 2000 people could join the case against the Perth-based company, since according to him, "I have not seen anything on this scale before." He added, "I doubt whether Australia has ever seen anything of this scale involving, if you like, mums and dads investors. The sheer amount of money lost is staggering."

Between 700 and 800 Westpoint clients contacted Slater and Gordon in the past six weeks and others were still contacting them on a daily basis, according to Mr. Lees.

Investors also were contacting the litigation funder in large numbers, consumer advocate, and IMF spokeswoman Denise Brailey told The Sunday Times. "People simply have nowhere else to go," she pointed out, adding, "They are working out things for themselves, they are looking at two or three options and realizing the IMF model is possibly the only way to go at this stage." She adds, "So we are getting an enormous response around Australia."

Ms. Brailey also told The Sunday Times that the legal action would be complex. She explains, "It is complex in the fact that we are talking about ... investors that are in every state in Australia, a couple of those people are over overseas." The IMF spokeswoman added, "We are talking about seven jurisdiction and we are talking about 140 planning firms and rising."

Mr. Lees told The Sunday Times that it would take time to work out what legal action would be taken, but it was likely the first targets would be financial planners and advisers, adding, "We will only take action if we believe there is a strong prospect of being successful." It was impossible to put a time frame on how long the legal action would take, according to him.

Wild Oats Markets Canada, Inc., as successor to Alfalfa's Canada, Inc., was named as a defendant in the suit. The class action, which seeks monetary damages, was brought in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada by the representative plaintiffs on behalf of two groups of claimants: those who claim to have contracted Hepatitis A allegedly through the consumption of food purchased at a Capers Community Market in the spring of 2002, and those who were inoculated against Hepatitis A in March and April, 2002, after handling and/or consuming food products from Capers that were or might have been contaminated with Hepatitis A.

In July 2005, the Court approved a settlement agreement pursuant to which plaintiffs submitted proof of claim received, at their election, either cash or a gift card, redeemable at our Canadian stores, in amounts determined by classification of the claimant within one of three separate categories. The Company exhausted its deductible, and its insurers have provided coverage for excess defense and administrative costs and settlement liability.

WYETH INC: Goldstein Howe Seeks High Court Review of Clark Case---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm Goldstein & Howe, PC, filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the U.S. to review the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the case, styled, "Clara Clark v. Wyeth, Inc.," according to Amy Howe of http://www.scotusblog.com/.

Plaintiffs in the case are individuals who brought state law tort claims against the Company based on injuries they suffered from taking the diet-drug combination "fen-phen." They contended that their claims were not precluded by a prior nationwide settlement of fen-phen-related litigation, since they had received constitutionally inadequate representation in the negotiations that produced that settlement.

The Third Circuit held as a matter of law that absent class members are forbidden from collaterally attacking a settlement when the district judge previously considered the adequacy of representation. The court of appeals acknowledged a direct conflict between its decision and "Stephenson v. Dow Chemical Co., 273 F.3d 249 (CA2 2001), aff'd by an equally divided Court, 539 U.S. 111 (2003).

Court documents revealed that the Clara Clark, et al. are former users of "fen-phen," a combination of drugs that, until withdrawn from the market, was widely prescribed for weight loss. Studies have revealed that fen-phen causes a variety of medical conditions, ranging from relatively minor health concerns to fatal heart disease. Many of the conditions are asymptomatic and can be discovered only through medical testing.

When plaintiffs learned that they had contracted illnesses associated with fen-phen, they sought to sue the Company for damages. In response, the Company contended that their claims were precluded by an earlier nationwide settlement of fen-phen-related litigation. With respect to some plaintiffs, the settlement purports to limit their right to sue; with respect to other petitioners, the settlement purports to extinguish their claims altogether, leaving them with no remedy at all.

COOPER CO: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.--------------------------------------------------------------- Smith & Smith, LLP, initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of The Cooper Companies, Inc. (NYSE:COO) between July 29, 2004 and November 21, 2005, inclusive, including those who received Cooper shares through its acquisition of Ocular Sciences, Inc.

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period concerning the Company's business and financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Cooper securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

GrafTech provides synthetic and natural graphite and carbon-based products, as well as technical and R&D services. Its synthetic graphite products include: graphite electrodes, cathodes, and advanced synthetic graphite products. The complaint charges GrafTech and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business prospects, which served to artificially inflate the price of the Company's securities. Specifically, defendants knew and concealed that:

(1) pricing power for the Company's graphite electrode products was nonexistent, particularly in the European markets;

(2) announced cost-cutting measures were insufficient to improve the Company's bottom line;

(3) contraction in the non-graphite market was contributing to the Company's financial woes;

(4) the Company was unable to accurately forecast growth and report guidance; and

(5) the Company's inability to determine the required extent of its restructuring activities and charges necessary to counter the costs of its staggering debt and loss of pricing power grossly understated the true costs the Company would incur in restructuring.

On February 8, 2006, GrafTech revealed the truth about its business prospects. As a result, the price of GrafTech shares plunged 37.0%, on unusually high volume, falling from $7.31 per share on February 8, 2006 to $4.60 per share on February 9, 2006, for a one-day drop of $2.71 per share, on volume of 9.8 million shares, nearly twelve times the average daily trading volume.

OMNICARE INC: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Ky.----------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on behalf of purchasers of Omnicare, Inc. (NYSE: OCR) publicly traded securities during the period between August 3, 2005 and January 27, 2006.

The complaint charges Omnicare and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Omnicare provides pharmaceutical care for elderly people primarily in the U.S. and Canada.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. As a result of these false statements, Omnicare stock traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, trading as high as $61.85 per share, and the Company was able to complete offerings of more than $2.5 billion worth of securities.

On January 30, 2006, Associated Press reported that on January 27, 2006, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Michigan attorney general's office raided Omnicare's offices in Livonia and other cities. On this news, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus downgraded the stock due to his concerns regarding the raid and the potential for further raids on the Company's offices. In response, on January 30, 2006, Omnicare shares fell $5.09 to $49.96 in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows:

(1) the Company was artificially inflating its earnings by engaging in improper generic drug substitution;

(2) the Company was not in compliance with Medicare laws;

(3) the implementation of the Medicare Part D Plan had dramatically increased the Company's costs and increased the number of rejected Medicare claims to nearly 40%;

(4) the Company was not "well-positioned to add value under the new Medicare Part D" Plan, but rather, the Company lacked adequate staff and internal compliance controls to ensure the Company could benefit from the new plan and instead, the Part D Plan wreaked havoc on the Company's business model, sending costs, rejection rates and receivables far higher than shareholders were led to believe.

PROQUEST CO: Smith & Smith Sets April 11 Lead Plaintiff Deadline----------------------------------------------------------------Smith & Smith, LLP, set an April 11, 2006, deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class action filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of ProQuest Company (NYSE:PQE), during the period January 9, 2003 through February 8, 2006. The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period concerning the Company's financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of ProQuest securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.